By Heart is a series in which authors share and discuss their all-time favorite passages in literature.

Doug McLean

There was a time when every able schoolchild in American memorized poems -- which is perhaps why the very word "memorization," for many, conjures unhappy images of 1950s schoolrooms where glassy-eyed kids chant out rote lessons before the air raid drill. But today, most of us barely retain the phone numbers of cherished friends and lovers. Since our gadgets store the information that we must be counted on to recall, freeing our brains to pursue bigger ideas, why memorize a poem? Why go beyond simple on-the-page appreciation and learn a piece by heart?

Related Story

When I asked Caleb Crain, author of Necessary Errors, to contribute to this series, he wanted to discuss how much he learned by committing a poem to memory. Only through repetition did W.H. Auden's "In Praise of Limestone" really come alive for him -- it was by going over it and over it with teeth and tongue, he says, that he grasped the work's structural and poetic nuances. A headline from the Times Educational Supplement nails the prevailing attitude -- "Learning by Rote Kills Verse for Life" -- but in his essay, Crain demonstrates how memorization unearthed this poem's lasting gift.

Necessary Errors tells the story of Jacob, a young American in Prague, and chronicles the sexual, artistic, and worldly awakenings of strange youths in a strange land. Arriving in 1990, just one year after the Velvet Revolution, Jacob and his companions wonder whether they've been born too late: The remains of spent passion and crumbled glory surround them as they search for love and meaning.

Caleb Crain is a frequent contributor to the New Yorker, the New Yorker Review of Books, the New York Times Magazine, and many other publications. He is author of the critical work American Sympathy and the novella "Sweet Grafton," published by n+1.

Caleb Crain: Almost 20 years ago, I met a fellow graduate student who knew W.H. Auden's poem "In Praise of Limestone" by heart. We were both gay, and the lines that my new friend was able to recite seemed to capture with uncanny precision the hopes and fears with which we were looking for love and companionship in New York City. Auden's phrase "sometimes / Arm in arm, but never, thank God, in step," for example, seemed to describe the balance between erotic harmony and individual autonomy that we were seeking -- a balance that seemed as if it might be a bit trickier to achieve in gay relationships than in straight ones, given that gay lovers share a gender. My friend quoted the line so often to me that I was soon able to quote it back to him; it became a touchstone for the way we wanted our romances and our friendships to go. Another favorite of ours was the line "I, too, am reproached, for what / And how much you know," which I think we liked because of the complicity it suggested -- the sense, conveyed by the rhythm of the words, that they had been spoken by someone who had been led astray by desire much in the way that we often were -- by someone who knew what our struggles were like and felt safe winking at them.

My friend's memorization seemed like such a neat trick that in the end I knocked it off, and memorized the poem myself. It wasn't hard. The poem doesn't rhyme, but its images are vivid, and the phrases are so much fun to say that they stick naturally in one's head. Auden wrote the poem soon after moving to Italy in the spring of 1948, and according to the scholar John Fuller, whose glosses of Auden are indispensable, the limestone landscape of the poem represents both the lead-mining terrain that Auden knew in his childhood in England and the countryside around Florence that he was then exploring for the first time as an adult. The conceit of the poem is that limestone shapes the personalities, ethics, and imaginations of boys and men who grow up on a landscape comprised of it. Limestone, in Auden's handling, is both a sensuous thing, to be appreciated for its own sake, and a foothold, as it were, for allegory.

The young men native to limestone move, the poem says, "in twos and threes," and Auden's poem moves the same way. The rhythm is an irregular mix of iambs (one-two) and dactyls (one-two-three). Alliteration, of the sort that Auden admired in Anglo-Saxon poetry, also occurs in pairs and trios: "a private pool," "steep stone gennels," "the shady side of a square at midday." The pattern even recurs in the structure of the sentences. The second sentence, for example, consists of three commands: "mark these rounded slopes," "hear these springs," and "examine this region." The next sentence offers a choice of two options for what the landscape could be. And the sentence following suggests three examples of manmade structures that resemble naturally occurring phenomena. And so on. If you sit down to memorize the poem, you quickly discover that the pairs and triples are a mnemonic aid. There are three ways a young man raised on limestone tends to go bad. There are two things the limestone isn't, despite appearances. Only once in the poem is there four of something -- a significant number, I think, because the four items constitute a prayer, an aspiration a little beyond the alternation of twos and threes that is natural to humans. Soon after, as the poem winds down, the triangles give way to couples, as if to suggest that the poem is reaching a kind of peace and perhaps stability.

I was a little unsettled by how rich and strong the poem still seemed to me, after so many years away from it. It seemed more sad than I had remembered and also funnier. The questions it raises don't get any easier as one gets older.

I say "triangles and couples," rather than just threes and twos, because Auden's limestone is explicitly sexual, as well as sensual. In the first published version, Auden wrote that the rocky terrain was a suitable background for a "nude young male who lounges / Against a rock displaying his dildo." It's a startling word. I remember my friend and I debating it. Had Auden had intended for his readers -- or anyway, for his gay readers -- to understand that he would have written "prick" or "cock" if he had been able to get away with it? In 1966, when Auden republished the poem, he seems to have thought he couldn't get away with even that much, and the word "dildo" vanished. Rather ingeniously, Fuller suggests that Auden chose the word "dildo" quite deliberately because, Fuller argues, "the dildo is a surrogate," and therefore an element in the opposition within the poem of art and nature. The dildo is a stony representation of the human form. Part of the human form, anyway. Another part seems to make an appearance in a later stanza, when Auden wonders if the landscape he describes is no more than "a backward and dilapidated province, connected / To the big busy world by a tunnel."

The danger of memorizing a poem, especially when it speaks to you, is that it works into the way you think. When it came time for me to write my dissertation, which eventually became the book American Sympathy, I found that I couldn't get Auden out of my head. In one chapter, I discussed a scene in Edgar Huntly, a 1799 Gothic novel by the American writer Charles Brockden Brown, in which a young man wanders through a limestone landscape, aerated, as all such landscapes are, with spring-carved caves. Was Brown's landscape, like Auden's, shaped by sexual myth? Auden's poem came back to me yet again while I was writing my novel Necessary Errors. I noticed, in the background of my thoughts, the return of Auden's dildo, with all its ambiguity and ambivalence. Auden prays that he may not resemble "a thing like water / Or stone whose conduct can be predicted," but he also celebrates the continuity between the naturally occurring shapes that water carves over time into rock and the human forms that the human eye -- and eventually with the progress of civilization, the human hand -- impose on the same substance. Statues, by the end of Auden's poem, even become icons of salvation. Can the innocence and eternity of a statue be reconciled with the impertinence and vigor of a youth making, as Auden puts it, "lively offers"? How do you represent gay love in art? How do you represent any human love, for that matter? I briefly considered changing the title of my novel to "The One Landscape that We the Inconstant Ones Are Consistently Homesick for," a phrase from the poem's opening lines, but the suggestion was politely and speedily suppressed by my agent and editor.

Earlier this year, for Valentine's Day, Rachel Syme invited me to join a group of writers who would be reciting poems they knew by heart in a program that she and Maris Kreizman were organizing at New York's Housing Works Bookstore. I found that I wanted to recite "In Praise of Limestone." It took me a few weeks to commit it again to memory, and as I did so, I was a little unsettled by how rich and strong the poem still seemed to me, after so many years away from it. It seemed more sad than I had remembered and also funnier. The questions it raises don't get any easier as one gets older. Sap that I am, I choked up a little as I recited, and even glancing at the lines now, I find myself moved as ever by the tenderness of Auden's voice -- the way he calls the reader "My dear" and "Dear" -- and by the tone of resignation with which he admits that he can't bring himself to give up on the two supreme human inventions, everlasting love and the immortality of the soul.

About the Author

Joe Fassler is a writer based in Brooklyn. His fiction has appeared in The Boston Review, and he regularly interviews authors for The Lit Show. In 2011, his reporting for TheAtlantic.com was a finalist for a James Beard Foundation Award in Journalism.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

No other place mixes affordability, opportunity, and wealth so well. What’s its secret?

If the American dream has not quite shattered as the Millennial generation has come of age, it has certainly scattered. Living affordably and trying to climb higher than your parents did were once considered complementary ambitions. Today, young Americans increasingly have to choose one or the other—they can either settle in affordable but stagnant metros or live in economically vibrant cities whose housing prices eat much of their paychecks unless they hit it big.

The dissolution of the American dream isn’t just a feeling; it is an empirical observation. In 2014, economists at Harvard and Berkeley published a landmark study examining which cities have the highest intergenerational mobility—that is, the best odds that a child born into a low-income household will move up into the middle class or beyond. Among large cities, the top of the list was crowded with rich coastal metropolises, including San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, and New York City.